I wanna discuss leftist policies regarding economics. What leftist economic policies do you support/oppose and why?

I wanna discuss leftist policies regarding economics. What leftist economic policies do you support/oppose and why?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qBfC1YG9wIs
who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/16/kenneth-arrow-says-single-payer-is-better-than-any-other-system/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The jews did this.

Jews did what? The entirity of economic leftism?

Negative IncomeTax
Land Value Tax
High taxes on capital in general
Universal publicly funded healthcare as an alternative option to private healthcare
A publicly funded education system with both a traditional path and one for trades based on peoples' demonstrated intellectual abilities and aptitude
Publicly fully funded university education for certain degrees based on demonstrated merit and ability
The creation of large syndicates/trade organizations to support and protect workers in industries
Lots of other stuff too really

Socialized healthcare, defense industry and energy.
State should stay out of everything else.

And perhaps telecommunications. But I'd also enforce full transparency and I would have controllers up their ass.

I'd say consumer protection and environmental regulations aren't that bad, eh?

You mean policies that destroy rather than nurture an economy?

I mean policies that put regulations on big business, progressive tax codes and socialization of some industries. They aren't necessarily harmful to the economy.

youtube.com/watch?v=qBfC1YG9wIs

Socialized healthcare isn't very effective. It does have a lot of buying power but not a lot of incentive to benefit the consumer.

It's better than the private insurance system, because it makes sure everyone's covered for basic care. Also: the state has an incentive to keep it's citizens healthy because healthy poeple are more productive to the economy.

> Prager Memeiversity
> vs. Real-world results and top economists
Look up Kenneth Arrow, Single-Payer is generally the best model for healthcare
who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/16/kenneth-arrow-says-single-payer-is-better-than-any-other-system/

Private insurance has behaved as a monopoly. That is why it has never been very effective.

> Also: the state has an incentive to keep it's citizens healthy because healthy poeple are more productive to the economy.
I'm for universal healthcare but don't fall for such a meme argument, the state doesn't give a shit about the health of its citizens, or at least it's doing a really shit of job of showing that it does just based on current policies. If it did we'd have public exercise programs, we'd be subsidizing certain foods, heavily taxing the shit out of sugar, etc.

Equality of opportunity is a good thing. Other than that they're wrong on pretty much everything.

Then why is Canada moving away from it?
The buying power is awesome but the government fucks everything up because they are a 3rd party payer. This isn't just a problem with healthcare.

You can't say they're better than nationalized healthcare then, can you?

Well, I'm all for that. If we wanna have single payer, we've got to make sure people are generally healthy to have it be sustainable.

Not until there is competition. Trump has proposed allowing purchase across state lines. Monopoly busted!

You want the state to take care of everything till you are a pig in a cage on antibiotics.

In America, 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to medical care. Tell me again how a private system is good.

You can have all the competition you want. If not everyone is covered, single payer is superior.

That is because it is a monopoly and the prices only go up and services don't improve. Single payer is a monopoly too and will have the same problems.

I want the basics of people's existence secured. Basic medical care, basic access to housing and basic access to food. The rest is up to the individual.

I kinda like a system where if I work harder I get more. The idea that I get the same shitty healthcare no matter how much effort I put in terrifies me.

Are you saying under single payer people will die too because of lack of medical care? Because that doesn't happen.

But is it better than the model we used in the pre-insurance days where communities would voluntarily contribute to public medical funds?

I would definitely agree that insurance is an abomination created by capitalism in order to make the recipients of insurance money rich by essentially exempting their pricing from any basis in reality. Same with student loans. You start showering someone with unlimited money they'll have no qualms about raising prices to a ridiculous degree.

I don't see the government taking the place of insurance helping the problem though, it'd just replace insurance with gubbermint gibs and we all know how efficient the government is at allocating money. Insurance itself should be outlawed so that normal people can afford to pay for their own healthcare out of pocket or with the collective help of a few friends.

You could have single payer as an alternative to normal private providers so everybody gets healthcare, and you can get your own better healthcare if you want to pay

Happens in Brittan and Canada. People die waiting in line.

I think we shouldn't deny people medical care if we could help them. Of course you should enjoy your wealth but if single payer only covers BASIC care, you can still have that.

But not 45,000 a year. That would happen no matter under which system though. For some people all help comes too late.

Look up 3rd party payer. It is the reason why nothing the government does works well.

Leave the feeling and believing to the religious folk.

>believing
I don't just have "faith" in single payer. Look at the life expectancy of countries and which ones have nationalized healthcare of some sort.

You're probably referring to scandanavia, correct?

There's 2 things about the US that are very different than northern Europe. 1) demographics - minorities don't pay as much in taxes, and generally have an extremely entitled attitude. This will collectively piss off even the most bleeding hearted of liberals eventually, anyone right of Bernie will get fed up10x faster. 2) people like to shit on Americans for being unhealthy, and for good reason. There's no reason to stay in shape other than aesthetics in most places in the US. Our cities are sprawling and don't accommodate walking, suburbs and small towns are the same way. Driving is the only viable option in most places. Ergo, people will have to expend more effort to stay healthy when an easier and more practical option exists. Anyone thinking people en masse will choose health over comfort long term is a fucking fool.

You also have to remember that a single payer healthcare would also raise the debt here in the United States just by itself look at a analysis done by the Tax Policy Center writtwn by Gordon B. Mermin where he states that the federal budget deficits would increase by more than 18 trillion over the next decade.

That's the price you have to pay for this system. Everyone has to make an effort to be as healthy as possible. Maybe these millenial twats and entitled children don't get that. This system is not for someone's egotistical needs, but for the benefit of everyone.

Public healthcare. Yep, it's overcrowded but that's a given once EVERYONE can get all the healthcare they might need. Downside is inevitable corruption and need to control/own all aspects of health insurance and healthcare to minimize costs.

Free/subsidized higher educations.

Progressive tax codes (within reason)

So if nigs would just quit nigging and fatties would just quit fatting we'd have our socialist paradise? Kek, I almost admire your naivety. Almost.

>I wanna discuss leftist policies regarding economics. What leftist economic policies do you support/oppose and why?


union of workers and socialized healthcare and universities.

>Socialist paradise
It's not a socialist utopia if it actually works in several countries.

And how long will those systems put up with the constant punishment of new migrants who don't have a hope and prayer of ever being gainfully employed that's been going on the last few years?

Honest question since we've already been racked with the vibrant diversity model since our inception and it's our biggest hurdle towards achieving socialized healthcare.

In the modern western world, the whole "from each according to his ability" bit seems to get forgotten about when talking about implementing socialist/commie policies. As it is now, we're already a nation of about 50% moochers and 50% hay makers. I'm in the latter category but i'd almost quit my job and become a welfare leech out of spite rather than subsidize the healthcare of hispanics, blacks, or God forbid Muslims who'd just as soon see me and mine hang than ever attempt to integrate into our community.

I don't like mass migration and that stuff either and it's quite critical that there are some people who do nothing for our society, I concede to that point. However, if we didn't have these people, what would be wrong with it?

Nothing, which is why it's worked well in Europe for so long. If it can survive another decade of being BLACKED maybe I'd concede to it's possibility of being feasible in the US. My guess is that it'll collapse under it's own weight sooner rather than later though.

Although I would like to add that is my preferred position. If doctors never got showered in a blank check of gibs masquerading as a subsidy for the common man's healthcare costs then a years worth of cancer treatment wouldn't cost a decade's salary. The concept of insurance is fucking absurd.

Fair enough.